3 ms·

>If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborho

by slg 4y ago

>If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down. This clarifies your objection to my "all" comment because it is the same type of thinking to which I was referring. You are stating that regulation is assumed to be bad until proven otherwise. Maybe I should have put an "unless proven otherwise" disclaimer after "all regulation is bad" in my original comment, I will grant you that. But I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't dispute something that was proven to be true. Until you have that proof, you are seemingly assuming all regulation is bad.

anon291 4y ago
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I do not think all regulation is bad until proven otherwise. I said: > >If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down. So if you have a good regulation that ought to be made, but made it in a terrible way, then that good regulation is bad, because it's made incorrectly. This does not mean every regulation is presumed bad. Just that regulation should be questioned. What is the alternative? We accept all regulation without any criteria as to whether it's effective, correctly made, or minimal in scope? Is that really the level of apathy I have to descend to in order to not be accused of calling all regulation 'bad'? That's a bit much.
- slg 4y ago
  >>>If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down. I propose we create federal legislation that food companies need to label their food with their exact ingredients. According to this comment, this regulation will be struck down until it can "be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the [federal] level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level". How is "it should be struck down" different than "it is bad"? Because I read it as you saying this regulation is bad until I can prove it is necessary to happen at the federal level. >regulation should be questioned... What is the alternative? We accept all regulation without any criteria as to whether it's effective, correctly made, or minimal in scope? I'm not arguing that regulation needs to go unquestioned. I said in my first comment that there is both good and bad regulation. The alternative approach is that we don't have some universal rule like you are suggesting and instead judge regulation on a case by case basis. Like I said in my first comment, the answer to bad regulation is good regulation. Your stance still seems to that the answer to bad regulation is no regulation.
  - anon291 4y ago
    > I propose we create federal legislation that food companies need to label their food with their exact ingredients. According to this comment, this regulation will be struck down until it can "be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level". You are saying this regulation is bad until I can prove it is necessary to happen at the federal level. How is "it should be struck down" different than "it is bad"? Okay, suppose such legislation is created at the federal level. Now, someone disagrees, and sues. The courts will examine the question if the legislation could achieve the same purpose if enacted on the state level. Since food can be imported, my guess would be imported foods could be regulated by the feds, since states don't handle importation processes. On the other hand, foods produced and consumed in the same state would be up to state regulation. This would be good, since some states have very different food cultures (Louisiana, for example), and it's not really clear to me why voters in Minnesota should have a say in how those local foods are produced and consumed. As for food commerce between states, I'm not sure, I would think that states could handle that via inter-state compacts and trade agreements. In this particular case, I don't think counties or municipalities would be a good level of government, since most food is not produced and consumed in the same city or county. > judge regulation on a case by case basis Oh so you agree with me? How can such regulation be 'judged on a case by case basis' without meta-regulations of the kind I mentioned? It seems to me that today, anything goes, and there's nothing you can do when such rules are enacted. Also, if such rules are being 'judged on a case by case basis' (presumably for each piece of legislation), then presumably you too judge each new regulation to be bad, since it is apparently in need of judgement (and presumably being made illegal if the judge decides so... or do you advocate judgement with no repercussions?). Honestly I'm very confused over why you disagree with me.
    - slg 4y ago
      >On the other hand, foods produced and consumed in the same state would be up to state regulation. This would be good, since some states have very different food cultures (Louisiana, for example), and it's not really clear to me why voters in Minnesota should have a say in how those local foods are produced and consumed. But nothing I said in my comment related to "different food cultures" any more than regulation to not put poison in food. There are some standards that we can all agree on and we might as well define those standards at the highest level they are applicable since we all agree on them. >Oh so you agree with me? How can such regulation be 'judged on a case by case basis' without meta-regulations of the kind I mentioned? It seems to me that today, anything goes, and there's nothing you can do when such rules are enacted. Also, if such rules are being 'judged on a case by case basis' (presumably for each piece of legislation), then presumably you too judge each new regulation to be bad, since it is apparently in need of judgement (and presumably being made illegal if the judge decides so... or do you advocate judgement with no repercussions?). Honestly I'm very confused over why you disagree with me. Do you know one of the main differences between criminal trials and civil trials? Criminal trials grant the defendant innocence until proven guilty while civil trials do not grant this presumption of innocence and instead rely on a preponderance of the evidence. You are basically asking for a presumption of guilt for regulation. I am saying there should be no assumptions. Another way to restate that presumption of guilt would be to say "all regulation is bad until proven otherwise".

by slg 4y ago

anon291 4y ago

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I do not think all regulation is bad until proven otherwise. I said: > >If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down. So if you have a good regulation that ought to be made, but made it in a terrible way, then that good regulation is bad, because it's made incorrectly. This does not mean every regulation is presumed bad. Just that regulation should be questioned. What is the alternative? We accept all regulation without any criteria as to whether it's effective, correctly made, or minimal in scope? Is that really the level of apathy I have to descend to in order to not be accused of calling all regulation 'bad'? That's a bit much.

slg 4y ago
>>>If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down. I propose we create federal legislation that food companies need to label their food with their exact ingredients. According to this comment, this regulation will be struck down until it can "be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the [federal] level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level". How is "it should be struck down" different than "it is bad"? Because I read it as you saying this regulation is bad until I can prove it is necessary to happen at the federal level. >regulation should be questioned... What is the alternative? We accept all regulation without any criteria as to whether it's effective, correctly made, or minimal in scope? I'm not arguing that regulation needs to go unquestioned. I said in my first comment that there is both good and bad regulation. The alternative approach is that we don't have some universal rule like you are suggesting and instead judge regulation on a case by case basis. Like I said in my first comment, the answer to bad regulation is good regulation. Your stance still seems to that the answer to bad regulation is no regulation.
- anon291 4y ago
  > I propose we create federal legislation that food companies need to label their food with their exact ingredients. According to this comment, this regulation will be struck down until it can "be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level". You are saying this regulation is bad until I can prove it is necessary to happen at the federal level. How is "it should be struck down" different than "it is bad"? Okay, suppose such legislation is created at the federal level. Now, someone disagrees, and sues. The courts will examine the question if the legislation could achieve the same purpose if enacted on the state level. Since food can be imported, my guess would be imported foods could be regulated by the feds, since states don't handle importation processes. On the other hand, foods produced and consumed in the same state would be up to state regulation. This would be good, since some states have very different food cultures (Louisiana, for example), and it's not really clear to me why voters in Minnesota should have a say in how those local foods are produced and consumed. As for food commerce between states, I'm not sure, I would think that states could handle that via inter-state compacts and trade agreements. In this particular case, I don't think counties or municipalities would be a good level of government, since most food is not produced and consumed in the same city or county. > judge regulation on a case by case basis Oh so you agree with me? How can such regulation be 'judged on a case by case basis' without meta-regulations of the kind I mentioned? It seems to me that today, anything goes, and there's nothing you can do when such rules are enacted. Also, if such rules are being 'judged on a case by case basis' (presumably for each piece of legislation), then presumably you too judge each new regulation to be bad, since it is apparently in need of judgement (and presumably being made illegal if the judge decides so... or do you advocate judgement with no repercussions?). Honestly I'm very confused over why you disagree with me.
  - slg 4y ago
    >On the other hand, foods produced and consumed in the same state would be up to state regulation. This would be good, since some states have very different food cultures (Louisiana, for example), and it's not really clear to me why voters in Minnesota should have a say in how those local foods are produced and consumed. But nothing I said in my comment related to "different food cultures" any more than regulation to not put poison in food. There are some standards that we can all agree on and we might as well define those standards at the highest level they are applicable since we all agree on them. >Oh so you agree with me? How can such regulation be 'judged on a case by case basis' without meta-regulations of the kind I mentioned? It seems to me that today, anything goes, and there's nothing you can do when such rules are enacted. Also, if such rules are being 'judged on a case by case basis' (presumably for each piece of legislation), then presumably you too judge each new regulation to be bad, since it is apparently in need of judgement (and presumably being made illegal if the judge decides so... or do you advocate judgement with no repercussions?). Honestly I'm very confused over why you disagree with me. Do you know one of the main differences between criminal trials and civil trials? Criminal trials grant the defendant innocence until proven guilty while civil trials do not grant this presumption of innocence and instead rely on a preponderance of the evidence. You are basically asking for a presumption of guilt for regulation. I am saying there should be no assumptions. Another way to restate that presumption of guilt would be to say "all regulation is bad until proven otherwise".